You can not get through a day without committing a felony.
Is this really true? (We could use a week without felonies instead, if you were exaggerating.) I'm sure people do sometimes commit crimes without any criminal intent, but at least one felony per day (or week) per person? And it has to be something that most people wouldn't think illegal, otherwise they'd at least try to avoid it doing it.
Why does the payload need admin privileges to encrypt your files? Unless your account only has read access to your data, but that would be very cumbersome.
what kind of nasty nasty unprotected malware operating system do you use? was it developed in china or russia?
Sort of funny considering there's a certain operating system from the United States that many around here would describe as "nasty unprotected malware":-)
(Yes, old people are the richest demographic in the USA now.)
I'm surprised that this hasn't always been the case, as you seem to imply. Is this because average lifespans have gone up, and there just weren't enough old (over 70 I presume) people alive 100 years ago or so?
Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers? Also I'm not really convinced yet that NPRK's military was behind the crime.
Even if they would be viewed as cowards, who is going to remember that when the next iPhone or whatever comes out? And I bet even fewer people will skip buying it because of this.
I suppose I misunderstood your first post I replied to. I thought you meant you wouldn't want to install updates because you don't trust Apple and I was curious why, in that case, would you trust OS X in the first place.
I don't use a Mac myself, so let's swap Microsoft in there instead. I think it's not entirely unlikely that they would be able to install updates without prompting me in any way, if it was in their interest. Usefulness of the system outweighs the likelihood of them screwing me over, hence I continue to run Windows for the time being.
Why is it nonsense? I don't think updates require significantly more trust in a vendor than using their operating system in the first place does. If they wanted to push in any way malicious updates, they could have built in a way to bypass the normal update mechanism altogether or hide it in a Trojan horse.
On the other hand, who do you think will stop buying their products? I doubt anyone can arrange a boycott on that scale, even if everything made in China is outlawed.
If he invests one billion in something with a measly 0,1% return, he'll still gain more money in a year than most salaried employees do. The money will replenish just fine, I think.
The U.S. should bear in mind that it will face serious consequences in case it rejects our proposal for joint investigation and presses for what it called countermeasure while finding fault with the DPRK.
If it rejects and begins countermeasures. Meaning if the US launches a military attack, they'll (try to) defend themselves. Nothing special or surprising there IMO.
IANAL, but if the copyright holder (assuming that would be Sony here) distributes something, why would it give anyone else legal rights to do so as well? Unless you meant something different (or maybe YAAL)?
I realize this was a joke, but how were viruses well supported by the authors in 1990s? The authors rarely provided contact info and their products only worked on computers running MS-DOS!
Maybe you could run those three phones in The Cloud, as virtual phones. Then you'd only have to carry one phone with you and connect it to The Cloud and switch between the virtual phones as necessary. Is there an app for this?
Since you didn't provide any sources, is this just your hypothesis or an actually observed pattern? If the latter, I wonder how the amount of non-heterosexual people can be determined? It's an interesting phenomenon if it's real, but do we know with any certainty if it is? Of course, one's sexual orientation doesn't matter unless I'm going to start a romantical relationship with them.
Taking away someone's driving license doesn't ruin their life. It's a big deal if they're professional drivers, sure, so hopefully they'll consider and reconsider before driving under the influence. Waiting until an accident (which can actually ruin lives) happens isn't a good idea.
I'm not sure what the limits are even in my own country, but it's very easy to stay under the limit; in fact, you don't need to do anything!
Slashdot Mirror
You can not get through a day without committing a felony.
Is this really true? (We could use a week without felonies instead, if you were exaggerating.) I'm sure people do sometimes commit crimes without any criminal intent, but at least one felony per day (or week) per person? And it has to be something that most people wouldn't think illegal, otherwise they'd at least try to avoid it doing it.
Glad that it works for your brother's family, but I'm not sure how a few webcams is an "automated home".
Why does the payload need admin privileges to encrypt your files? Unless your account only has read access to your data, but that would be very cumbersome.
what kind of nasty nasty unprotected malware operating system do you use? was it developed in china or russia?
Sort of funny considering there's a certain operating system from the United States that many around here would describe as "nasty unprotected malware" :-)
Isn't explorer.exe or any other file manager an app? Or a browser/wget/curl/netcat/whatever that lets you download that HTML file?
(Yes, old people are the richest demographic in the USA now.)
I'm surprised that this hasn't always been the case, as you seem to imply. Is this because average lifespans have gone up, and there just weren't enough old (over 70 I presume) people alive 100 years ago or so?
In my opinion it was just a little joke. Besides, isn't Easter the most important Christian holiday?
Yes, but what's disgusting about it? Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
Interesting that you mentally link porn accounts with disgusting. Makes one wonder just what kind of porn you're into.
That should be DPRK, of course. Serves me right trying to use fancy initialisms.
Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers? Also I'm not really convinced yet that NPRK's military was behind the crime.
Even if they would be viewed as cowards, who is going to remember that when the next iPhone or whatever comes out? And I bet even fewer people will skip buying it because of this.
I suppose I misunderstood your first post I replied to. I thought you meant you wouldn't want to install updates because you don't trust Apple and I was curious why, in that case, would you trust OS X in the first place.
I don't use a Mac myself, so let's swap Microsoft in there instead. I think it's not entirely unlikely that they would be able to install updates without prompting me in any way, if it was in their interest. Usefulness of the system outweighs the likelihood of them screwing me over, hence I continue to run Windows for the time being.
Why is it nonsense? I don't think updates require significantly more trust in a vendor than using their operating system in the first place does. If they wanted to push in any way malicious updates, they could have built in a way to bypass the normal update mechanism altogether or hide it in a Trojan horse.
On the other hand, who do you think will stop buying their products? I doubt anyone can arrange a boycott on that scale, even if everything made in China is outlawed.
But in that case you're probably not running OS X anyway, so the automatic updates are a moot point.
If he invests one billion in something with a measly 0,1% return, he'll still gain more money in a year than most salaried employees do. The money will replenish just fine, I think.
Rephrase that as "everyone should have pretty much equal amounts of stuff" and it doesn't sound that greedy any more.
The U.S. should bear in mind that it will face serious consequences in case it rejects our proposal for joint investigation and presses for what it called countermeasure while finding fault with the DPRK.
If it rejects and begins countermeasures. Meaning if the US launches a military attack, they'll (try to) defend themselves. Nothing special or surprising there IMO.
IANAL, but if the copyright holder (assuming that would be Sony here) distributes something, why would it give anyone else legal rights to do so as well? Unless you meant something different (or maybe YAAL)?
They should have confessed because then they'd be off the hook.
I realize this was a joke, but how were viruses well supported by the authors in 1990s? The authors rarely provided contact info and their products only worked on computers running MS-DOS!
Maybe you could run those three phones in The Cloud, as virtual phones. Then you'd only have to carry one phone with you and connect it to The Cloud and switch between the virtual phones as necessary. Is there an app for this?
Since you didn't provide any sources, is this just your hypothesis or an actually observed pattern? If the latter, I wonder how the amount of non-heterosexual people can be determined? It's an interesting phenomenon if it's real, but do we know with any certainty if it is? Of course, one's sexual orientation doesn't matter unless I'm going to start a romantical relationship with them.
Taking away someone's driving license doesn't ruin their life. It's a big deal if they're professional drivers, sure, so hopefully they'll consider and reconsider before driving under the influence. Waiting until an accident (which can actually ruin lives) happens isn't a good idea.
I'm not sure what the limits are even in my own country, but it's very easy to stay under the limit; in fact, you don't need to do anything!